Veste

Not upheld: non-receipt of goods / Section 75 refund claim complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Argos

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6062036 of 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00. non-receipt of goods / Section 75 refund claim complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Argos. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6062036
Decision date2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00
FirmNewDay Ltd trading as Argos
ProductCredit card
Claim typenon-receipt of goods / Section 75 refund claim
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman reminded Argos of its obligations to support Mr A if he is experiencing financial difficulty.

Summary

Mr A purchased a laptop for £1,600 on his Argos credit card but claimed non-receipt. Argos rejected his refund claim under Section 75 CCA after reviewing courier evidence showing the parcel was delivered to his address and handed to someone who knew his personal details. Mr A maintained he did not receive the laptop and did not recognise the person in the delivery photo, but could not explain who accepted the parcel. The ombudsman upheld Argos's decision, finding on balance of probabilities that the delivery was completed in accordance with contract terms, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test, finding that Argos had reasonably concluded the laptop was delivered in accordance with contract terms. The courier's evidence (multiple calls to Mr A's number, handover to someone with Mr A's personal details at the correct address) was more persuasive than Mr A's assertion of non-receipt, particularly given Mr A could not explain who accepted the parcel. Both implied terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and express contractual terms supported that delivery to the address with handover to someone there completed the retailer's obligations.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
NewDay Ltd trading as Argos, all decisions250%
Credit card, all decisions25,21122%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website